Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on assessing social acceptability of fuels treatments

A series of syntheses were commissioned by the USDA Forest Service to aid in fuels mitigation project planning. This synthesis focuses on research for assessing the social acceptability of fuels treatments. The synthesis is structured around six important considerations for any social acceptability assessment: defining the fuels treatments being assessed; representing the fuels treatments to people; identifying whose opinion is being sought; deciding how people will be contacted; allowing people to express their judgments; and analyzing and synthesizing the data.

[1]  B. Shelby,et al.  Changes in Scenic Quality after Harvest: A Decade of Ratings for Six Silviculture Treatments , 2003, Journal of Forestry.

[2]  G. T. Green,et al.  Outdoor Recreation and the Predictive Validity of Environmental Attitudes , 1999 .

[3]  Paul H. Gobster,et al.  The dimensions of aesthetic preference: a quantitative analysis. , 1989 .

[4]  Mark W. Brunson,et al.  Assessing Recreational and Scenic Quality: How Does "New Forestry" Rate? , 1992 .

[5]  Terry C. Daniel,et al.  Prescribed Fire: Public Education and Perception , 1984 .

[6]  L. Tyrväinen,et al.  Forest management and public perceptions — visual versus verbal information , 2001 .

[7]  R. Hull.  Sensitivity of scenic beauty assessments , 1986 .

[8]  Rebecca Lynn Johnson,et al.  Using Image-capture Technology to Assess Scenic Value at the Urban/Forest Interface: a Case Study , 1994 .

[9]  W. Martin,et al.  Stakeholder objectives for public lands: Rankings of forest management alternatives , 2000 .

[10]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Internet and teledemocracy in participatory planning of natural resources management , 2003 .

[11]  B. Steel,et al.  Thinking Globally and Acting Locally?: Environmental Attitudes, Behaviour and Activism , 1996 .

[12]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Recreation participation and the validity of photo-based preference judgments. , 1989 .

[13]  A. Bright,et al.  Public Attitudes Toward Ecological Restoration in the Chicago Metropolitan Region , 2002 .

[14]  K. Widaman,et al.  The risk perceptions and policy response toward wildland fire hazards by urban home-owners , 1987 .

[15]  I. Bishopa,et al.  Subjective responses to simulated and real environments : a comparison , 2003 .

[16]  Stephen R.J. Sheppard,et al.  Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics , 2000 .

[17]  Jonathan G. Taylor,et al.  Recreation and fire management: public concerns, attitudes, and perceptions. , 1986 .

[18]  R. Ribe.  Is Scenic Beauty a Proxy for Acceptable Management? , 2002 .

[19]  Terry C. Daniel,et al.  Targeting Audiences and Content for Forest Fire Information Programs , 1986 .

[20]  S. Stehman,et al.  Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process , 2001 .

[21]  Alan D. Bright,et al.  The quality of attitudinal information regarding natural resource issues: The role of attitude‐strength, importance, and information , 1995 .

[22]  M. Robson,et al.  Comparing the social values of forest-dependent, provincial and national publics for socially sustainable forest management. , 2000 .

[23]  Christine A. Vogt,et al.  Fuel Treatments at the Wildland-Urban Interface: Common Concerns in Diverse Regions , 2002, Journal of Forestry.

[24]  Brian Orland,et al.  Considering virtual worlds as representations of landscape realities and as tools for landscape planning , 2001 .

[25]  H. Timmermans,et al.  Stated preference and choice models applied to recreation research : a review , 1990 .

[26]  J. Garvill,et al.  Value Structures behind Proenvironmental Behavior , 2002 .

[27]  Kathleen E. Halvorsen,et al.  An Evaluation of Three Democratic, Community-Based Approaches to Citizen Participation: Surveys, Conversations With Community Groups, and Community Dinners , 2001 .

[28]  A. Kearney,et al.  Human dimensions of forest management: an empirical study of stakeholder perspectives , 1998, Urban Ecosystems.

[29]  Ervin H. Zube,et al.  Landscape perception: Research, application and theory , 1982 .

[30]  Rebecca L. Johnson,et al.  The Impact of Forests and Forest Management on Neighboring Property Values , 2002 .

[31]  Toddi A. Steelman,et al.  Elite and Participatory Policymaking: Finding Balance in a Case of National Forest Planning , 2001 .

[32]  Bo Shelby,et al.  Comparing methods for determining visitor evaluations of ecological impacts: site visits, photographs, and written descriptions , 1985 .

[33]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Subjective responses to computer simulations of urban environments , 2002 .

[34]  Lucas S. Bair,et al.  Prescribed Fire and Public Support: Knowledge Gained, Attitudes Changed in Florida , 2001, Journal of Forestry.

[35]  T. Daniel.  Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century , 2001 .

[36]  Brian Orland,et al.  Visualization techniques for incorporation in forest planning geographic information systems , 1994 .

[37]  P. Chisnall.  Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method , 2007, Journal of Advertising Research.

[38]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Construal Processes in Preference Assessment , 1999 .

[39]  Jerry J. Vaske,et al.  A Value-Attitude-Behavior Model Predicting Wildland Preservation Voting Intentions , 1999 .

[40]  David N. Bengston,et al.  Trends in National Forest Values among Forestry Professionals, Environmentalists, and the News Media, 1982-1993 , 1997 .

[41]  David N. Bengston,et al.  A new approach to monitoring the social environment for natural resource management and policy: The case of US national forest benefits and values , 1999 .

[42]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? , 1991 .

[43]  T. Brown,et al.  Examination of the predictive validity of CVM using an attitude‐behavior framework , 1996 .

[44]  Toddi A. Steelman,et al.  Public involvement methods in natural resource policy making: Advantages, disadvantages and trade-offs , 1997 .

[45]  Hanna J. Cortner,et al.  Forest-user attitudes toward alternative fire management policies , 1985 .

[46]  R. J. Lamb,et al.  Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure , 1990 .

[47]  Paul H. Gobster,et al.  Scenic Vistas and the Changing Policy Landscape: Visualizing and Testing the Role of Visual Resources in Ecosystem Management , 2002, Landscape Journal.

[48]  A. Kearney.  Effects of an Informational Intervention on Public Reactions to Clear-Cutting , 2001 .

[49]  B. Steel,et al.  Conflicting values about federal forests: A comparison of national and Oregon publics , 1994 .

[50]  A. Bright,et al.  Situational Influences of Acceptable Wildland Fire Management Actions , 2004 .

[51]  E. Zube,et al.  Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes , 1981 .

[52]  S. Mccool,et al.  How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences , 1986 .

[53]  Deborah J. Shields,et al.  Survey results of the American public's values, objectives, beliefs, and attitudes regarding forests and grasslands. , 2002 .

[54]  Jonathan G. Taylor,et al.  Public Support for Fire-Management Policies , 1984 .

[55]  Terry C. Daniel,et al.  Predicting Scenic Values in Forested Residential Landscapes , 1984 .

[56]  J. Fried,et al.  Homeowner Perspectives on Fire Hazard, Responsibility, and Management Strategies at the Wildland-Urban Interface , 2000 .

[57]  D. Bengston,et al.  Conflict Over Natural Resource Management: A Social Indicator Based on Analysis of Online News Media Text , 1999 .

[58]  D. Bengston,et al.  Attitudes Toward Ecosystem Management in the United States, 1992-1998 , 2001 .

[59]  Martha C. Monroe,et al.  Living with fire: homeowner assessment of landscape values and defensible space in Minnesota and Florida, USA , 2004 .

[60]  Terry C. Daniel,et al.  Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. , 2000 .

[61]  R. J. Lamb,et al.  Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach , 1998 .

[62]  R. Ribe.  The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us? , 1989 .

[63]  Seth Tuler,et al.  Voices from the Forest: What Participants Expect of a Public Participation Process , 1999 .

[64]  Gregory J. Buhyoff,et al.  Prediction of Scenic Quality for Southern Pine Stands , 1986 .

[65]  P. Boxall,et al.  Factors Influencing Forest Values and Attitudes of Two Stakeholder Groups: The Case of the Foothills Model Forest, Alberta, Canada , 2000 .

[66]  P. Boxall,et al.  The role of social psychological and social structural variables in environmental activism: an example of the forest sector ☆ , 2003 .

[67]  George H. Stankey,et al.  Social Acceptability of Forest Conditions and Management Practices: A Problem Analysis , 2002 .

[68]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation , 1997 .

[69]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Experiential approaches to perception response in virtual worlds , 2001 .

[70]  Edward P. Weber,et al.  Ecosystem management, decentralization, and public opinion , 2001 .

[71]  Michael A. Tarrant,et al.  The Effect of Respondent Characteristics on General Environmental Attitude-Behavior Correspondence , 1997 .

[72]  Gregory J. Buhyoff,et al.  The Scenic Beauty Temporal Distribution Method: An Attempt to Make Scenic Beauty Assessments Compatible with Forest Planning Efforts , 1986, Forest Science.

[73]  Douglas Reiter,et al.  Effects of Ecological Information on Judgments about Scenic Impacts of Timber Harvest , 1996 .

[74]  Alan D. Bright,et al.  The influence of balanced information on attitudes toward natural resource issues , 1997 .

[75]  M. Carroll,et al.  Your place or mine?: the effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings , 1995 .